$1M for a clue

"Mel Gibson Passionate About Keeping Terri Schiavo Alive".

What is up with these people? Does anyone have a clue as to the rationale, however convoluted it is, as to why they are so fanatic about keeping someone on artificial life support?  

Bob Schindler said he spoke to Gibson -- "The Passion of The Christ" director -- on Friday. He said Gibson told him, "to hammer God with prayers and hammer him hard."

They must realize that it's a machine- not God, state taxes- not private funds, that is the hammer here, so what is the fundamental logic?



Display:


don't troll rate me... (none / 0)

I'm just speculating that it might be their belief that we should use all means at our disposable to sustain life.  I think some of them view the "machines" as gifts from God that we should use because God has given us the know how to create and operate the machines.

Again, not defending the position, just trying to speculate from the other person's shoes.  

The case makes it clear that we all need to have "living wills" to preserve our choice in these matters.  Don't know if there was one in this case and they are trying to thwart it?

by jdavidson on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:47:33 AM EST

Re: don't troll rate me... (none / 0)

Thanks, I'm not asking anyone to defend it, but instead to explain it. I have some experience among fundamentals, schooling and such, and it's obviously evolved, with this 'lets use tax money and machines' to protect life fundamentally, into something bizzare.
by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't troll rate me... (none / 0)

IMO these people have a unnaturally over-developed fear of death. Thus, they spend consider time thinking both about the afterlife and about how to keep every human being (from a zygote to the comatose) alive.
Booman Tribune.
by BooMan on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't troll rate me... (none / 0)

its a messy case.

The husband is saying that she had said to him in a conversation that if she was on life support with no chance of coming back to pull the plug. The parents contended that Schiavo was a devout Catholic. The pope has said that you should let someone in this situation live. Then Schiavo would have listened to the pope, when push came to shove.

This isn't just like another Kevorkian case about someone choosing to die. I don't really trust the husband motives, as I mentioned below. The husband may have legally the right to do it, because the law is not in a position to differientiate between an honest motive and a disingenuous one.

by srolle on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't troll rate me... (none / 0)

There is a great deal of confusion about this case.  I'll try to clear up some of it.


  1. Terri Schiavo is in a vegetative state.  She suffered brain damage after having a heart attack and being deprived of oxygen.  As time has passed, her cerebral cortex -- the part of the brain responsible for conscious thought -- has become mostly liquid.  Her condition is irreversible.

  2. Terri Schiavo did not have a living will.  A living will (also known as an advanced directive to physicians) is a document that spells out a person's wishes regarding end-of-life medical treatment in cases when the person cannot express those wishes.  If Terri Schiavo had a living will, then she could have stated whether she wanted to be kept alive with artificial respiration, hydration, and nutrition after entering a vegetative state.

  3. Legally speaking, her husband, Michael Schiavo, did not "decide to pull the plug."  Terri's condition was the subject of a trial in a Florida court.  Michael presented evidence, including statements by some of Terri's friends and acquaintences, that Terri would not have wanted to be kept in a vegetative state.  Her parents presented evidence to the contrary.  In the end, the judge had to decide what Terri's decision would have been in this situation.  Because Terri cannot speak for herself, the court's decision becomes her decision.

  4. The judge found clear and convincing evidence that Terri's condition was irreversible and that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive in this circumstance.  "Clear and convincing evidence" is a standard stronger than "preponderance of the evidence," the standard used in most civil lawsuits, but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt," the standard used in criminal cases.

  5. The judge's decision regarding Terri's wishes was upheld on appeal, as have all his other decisions in this case that have been appealed.

Those interested in the full details of this case should view Matt Conigliaro's discussion on Abstract Appeal.  He's done a good job of explaining the details of the case, including the legal rulings, in a straightforward, even-handed manner.

by kenfair on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

WTF? (none / 0)

I know...I don't get why RWers get all upset over right to die issues. This isn't like the abortion issue where they can claim the baby/fetus/whatever doesn't have a choice, these people often times have the choice (not necessarily in this case, but many terminal patients do) whether to die or not. Whats so glorious about god making you suffer for years (I don't know everything about this woman's condition but she could stay on that thing for 50 years from what I hear). Its her husband's choice IMO (unless her will if she has one states otherwise), and his only. The Gov't needs to stay the fuck out of this. And theres more important things to bitch about Mel, like world peace, nuclear weapons, no WMDs in Iraq, and whats going on in Darfur
Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:50:20 AM EST

Re: WTF? (2.00 / 2)

In this case, she doesn't have a choice. It's not like no one is willing to take care of her. Her family just want their sister back, to take care of her. You can bitch and moan about how it costs you money, but why can't the family have their sister?

Well world peace is a very important thing, destroying nukes is very important.. family just as if not more important. I don't understand how this is a nuisance to you all. I say let the family have their sister back. They want to starve her to death? How humane is that? A lethal injection is more inhumane than starving someone to death?

I actually applaud Governor Bush on this one. I say let the family have their daughter back. They know she isn't going to be the same, but they are willing to take care of her.

by falcon4e on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:00:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

Its her husband's LEGAL right (i'm presuming theres no living will here), thats why I care, unlike some people, I care about legal precendent and the rule of law. If I was in a terminal situation that could last....decades, I would want my wife (i'm not married but this is hypothetical) not my parents making the decision. And I would want to die.

As for being humane, letting someone be on a feeding tube for 20 years is humane? I'd rather die than be on a tube for 20 years.

Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

I can't see how being fed on a tube is more inhumane than being left to starve. We'll agree to disagree then.
by falcon4e on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:18:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 1)

I'm not saying one is more humane than the other, I just don't see how being kept "alive" like that is that much more humane.

The main problem I have w/ what Gov. Bush is doing is that its saying that the Government reserves the right to reach beyong their jurisdiction and change legal custodies because they don't like the decision the legal guardian makes.

Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

This points to the importance of "Living Wills."  We really don't know what Terri would have chosen, which makes these questions impossible to answer.

Compounding the tragedy is the division between parents and husband.  The parents still hold out hope that someday their daughter will improve.  The husband believes she is already gone.  

What I find repugnant in this case is the absolutism demonstrated by the Right wing -- they don't know or care about Terri as a human being, they are using her as a symbol through which they push their own political/ideological objectives.  

Personally, I side with the parents on this case, but I think the Right's behavior in this is monstrous!  

by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

....what is the fundamental logic? (none / 0)

...Making millions more dollars on the re-release...
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:51:54 AM EST

Hammering God Hard--That's The Weird Part, IMHO (none / 0)

Talk About "Strict Parent" Morality!

I mean, it starts with punishing kids so that they're obedient and submissive to their parents as directed by God. And it evolves to metaphorically attacking God in the name of whatever.  Puzzling as the "whatever" may be, I think the role reversal, where it's God getting punished is what's really bizarre and telling here.  Ultimately none of this is about God. It's the punishment, stupid!

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:31:06 PM EST

Re: Hammering God Hard--That's The Weird Part, IMH (none / 0)

what do you expect out of someone who is Opus Dei? Those people are nut cases. Most well-informed Catholics think Mel Gibson is a bit of a loony. Popular movie not withstanding.
by srolle on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:44:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hammering God Hard--That's The Weird Part, IMH (none / 0)

Most well-informed Catholics think Mel Gibson is a bit of a loony.

Most well-informed Catholics know Mel Gibson isn't really Catholic.

He rejects Vatican II and I don't believe he accepts the authority of the current Pope, John Paul II. Therefore, he is, ipso facto, NOT a Catholic in good standing with the Church.

(Now you can tell all your right-wing buddies that according to the Catholic Church, John Kerry REALLY IS a better Catholic than Mel Gibson!)

by wayward on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not my particular view (3.00 / 1)

But people here have danced around the issue without hitting the nail on the head.  Its not thanking God for machines or anything like that.  The issue is that she didn't have a living will, and there's conflicting testimony about whether she wanted to be kept "alive" (if you can call it that) on a feeding tube.  Adding in the fact that there is a family that's willing to take care of her complicates it somewhat.  

I think even most fundies (at least the ones I've talked to in OK) don't have problems with passive euthanasia, as long as there is a clear advanced directive/living will.  

And having gone through this with my grandmother (Alzheimer's), I know what a terrible, terrible decision this is for a family, even when there IS a living will (my grandmother was quite explicit).  I can't imagine making this decision when there isn't one, much less having it made by someone else (and isn't there something about the husband as well, like he wants to remarry, and they think that's giving him the incentive here?  I don't remember).

As for Mel, he should mind his own f---ing business.

by pwj on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:32:23 PM EST

Re: Not my particular view (none / 0)

For what it's worth,  I just "super" rated you.  

These are torturous decisions and although living wills can't ease the pain of family members, they can, at least, assist in clarifying the wishes of the patient.

This girl was struck down at a painfully young age.  Living wills are something we should all have.

by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:54:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not my particular view (none / 0)

Oh, and the "As for Mel, he should mind his own f---ing business."

Perfection!

by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:55:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

her parents don't have her anymore (none / 0)

she's an adult! she's with her husband. if he wants to kill her, then so be it.
by teenagelunatic on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:41:57 PM EST

Re: her parents don't have her anymore (none / 0)

isn't there alot of messy stuff in this one?

Like her husband is gonna get a lot of money, when she dies, and he has is now dating someone else? I thought there was a life insurance twist.

There isn't this kind of outrage everytime someone gets the plug pulled on them.

by srolle on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: her parents don't have her anymore (none / 0)

The money in question was from a malpractice settlement against the hospital.  It all is long gone, having been consumed by her medical care.

X-ray upon X-ray shows that there's nothing in the thinking parts of her cranial cavity but liquid now.  Furthermore, those parts have been liquid since six months after she had the anorexia-induced heart attack that cut off oxygen to her brain.  

The only thing that her being declared legally dead would do would be to allow her widower to marry the woman he met after what was, for all practical purposes, Terri's death fifteen years ago.

Her parents and their well-financed surrogates in the anti-choice industry have done their best to imply (or state openly) that he caused Terri to get sick, but if they'd really believed that, they wouldn't have let him live with them for the first two years after the heart attack.

by Phoenix Woman on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:07:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: her parents don't have her anymore (none / 0)

How do you declare somebody dead who is already brain dead? How many decades do her parents want to keep her semi-alive? After they are dead, who will want to keep her semi-alive for another ten or twenty years?
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: her parents don't have her anymore (none / 0)

X-ray upon X-ray shows that there's nothing in the thinking parts of her cranial cavity but liquid now.

In the state of Florida, that doesn't really matter.

After all, they elected Jeb! twice!

/okay, okay, I'll stop.

by wayward on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why kill her (none / 0)

i am not religious but i`m not so sure this woman is unable to be helped to some extent. the parents seem to want to take on the burden of this woman why not just let them take over custody and see what they can do with her.it seems that slow starvation is a pretty nasty way to go if this woman has any cognitive brain funtion. if we are going to kill her why not give her something that will cause instant death, that sure seems more humane.anyway if the tube comes out it`s going to be a rallying cry for the religious right .
by JOEL1954 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:29:19 PM EST

Re: why kill her (none / 0)

Yeah, if only we could do away with stuff called legality and rule of law that'd be fine.
Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why kill her (none / 0)

I'm not a member of the religious right but I would be outraged.
by falcon4e on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why kill her (none / 0)


Why because her LEGAL guardian made a call that a brain damaged woman who's been in a coma for 15 years. That day this happens (and I hope it happens)it will make my day. Another step towards full equality in right to die matters (a big issue for me)
Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why kill her (none / 0)

I too think slow starvation is a grotesque "solution."  It's passive and therefore not exactly equal to assisted suicide but, my god, there has to be a quicker, more humane way. . .
by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:01:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

parents are not her guardians anymore (none / 0)

Family lawyers can tell you that parents do not generally make good guardians for adult children. That is why the law respects the spouse's wishes when there is no living will or other legal document explicitly stating what the person in a vegetative state would have wanted.
Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why kill her (none / 0)

How do you kill a corpse? Is there a humane way to kill somebody who is already dead?
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why kill her (none / 0)

I don't know, JollyBuddah.  I've seen the pictures and the videos of this girl and she doesn't look "dead" to me.  

She's profoundly impaired and disabled, yes.  But she's not on a breathing machine and she's not exactly "unconscious" either.   According to her parents, she has her moments.

I've heard of people in perpetual coma who are kept alive for religious reasons and I think that's ridiculous.  But this case is much murkier than that.  

by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let a corpse die? (none / 0)

The husband's lawyers claims that those are clips from a very long video that was edited to give a false impression of her awareness. If those very short clips are part of a one hour video where she is not reacting to outside stimuli at all, it is an entirely different question.

One problem is that there is absolutely no way to determine who is telling the truth on a lot of factual questions. What we do know is that a whole string of judges have ruled that she is legally dead.

It's not killing anyone, it's allowing autonomic reflexes of a corpse to cease functioning.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let a corpse die? (none / 0)

The key here is that the husband's lawyer claimed this.   Of course he did!  That's his job!

I don't know what's left of her brain or what part of it could be redeemable in the future and I don't think anyone else knows either.  That's what makes it so murky.  I certainly wouldn't define her as "a corpse."

The parents deserve to have a say in this regardless, she is their child, not ours, and not Mel Gibson's.

I hate that this case is so public!

by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let a corpse die? (none / 0)

I tend to side with the string of judges who decided the body should be allowed to expire. The parents and the state of Florida keep appealing and they keep losing.

I am relying on judicial evaluation of the medical evidence to call the body a corpse. If the brain does not function, the body is an empty shell. Contrary to Falwell's posturing, Judges don't make these decisions lightly, especially in such public cases.

The parents lost their say when she reached the age of majority and especially after she married. Legally they are little more than close acquaintances.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let a corpse die? (none / 0)

"The parents lost their say when she reached the age of majority and especially after she married. Legally they are little more than close acquaintances."

That's where I think the courts went wrong.  She was married for few years before she became disabled, but her parents will always be her parents.

by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let a corpse die? (none / 0)

Not legally bellarose. Courts have to cut the apron strings of legal responsibility somewhere. Marriage is a definitive legal bright line.
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:08:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let a corpse die? (none / 0)

I know.  I just don't agree with it.  
by bellarose on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Devil in the details (3.00 / 1)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on the Terri Schiavo case, one of the saddest pieces of political/medical theater to come along in ages. Well-informed opinions, however, are all too rare, and that's sad, too.

I feel very sorry for Terri's parents, who can't bear to let her go. Yet my sympathy is mitigated by the way they have recently resorted to such desperate tactics as claiming their son-in-law is afraid Terri will recover sufficiently to accuse him of causing her condition by physical abuse. No such suspicion was ever voiced before and no significant medical evidence exists to support it. The parents are grasping at straws.

Why doesn't Michael Schiavo just let his in-laws take over his wife's care? He claims to believe that she would not want to continue to exist in her current state and petitioned the state court to judge his testimony and that of others to the effect of his wife's wishes. The court ruled that there was ample grounds that Michael was correctly representing his wife's intentions and gave him permission to terminate her feeding and hydration. It was not a snap decision by the husband, but a fully adjudicated proceeding whose outcome bitterly disappointed Terri's parents. They have fought it ever since.

Michael Schiavo has turned down offers of money to divorce Terri and permit her custody to revert to her parents. This is consistent with his claim that he would be neglecting his wife's wishes if he did so. Yet it would be the easy way out if Michael just wanted some quick bucks and freedom to marry his longtime girlfriend (with whom he has begun a family and whom he plans to marry when he is eventually free to remarry).

A big question is whether Terri is really "alive" in any meaningful sense other than bodily function. Her parents have released videotapes that purport to show Terri reacting to vocal and visual stimuli, which most doctors have said she cannot do. The central portion of Terri's brain, the cerebral cortex, was destroyed by oxygen starvation during the cardiac arrest that caused her condition. That's the part of the brain we think with. Her autonomic system continues to function, making her heart beat, her lungs breath, etc. Doctors say that Terri moves and makes noises at random. I don't know how many hours of videotape her family had to go through to find the few minutes they show people that appear to show reactions. Since many folks think a "vegetative state" is like a coma, I'm sure the videos shock people when they see her mumbling, chuckling, blinking, or turning her head, but she apparently does that all the time. The court has accepted the medical diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state" and finds no significant chance of any improvement, no matter how much time and therapy is devoted to the case. Unless Terri's religious advocates can pray God into giving her a brain again, this is not going to change.

This is a bad situation, made worse now that it's been politicized by bad blood between family members and opportunists who see a platform from which to preach their dogmas. I don't think Michael Schiavo would be going to all this trouble if he didn't actually believe he was following his wife's wishes, which in written form would have prevented this entire circus. Others may believe differently, but it would be nice if those who do have credible evidence for their conclusions.

If you want a comprehensive timeline for the events in the Schiavo controversy and details about the medical evaluations and court rulings, the best single site is probably Abstract Appeal. Go check it out if you have the patience.

by TonyB on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:55:54 PM EST

about his girlfriend (none / 0)

If my hypothetical wife was taking care of me for 15 years while I was in a coma, I wouldn't mind her seeking someone else. I don't blame Michael S. here
Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:59:23 PM EST

"hammer" God? (3.00 / 1)

Now that's an interesting phrase. Hammer Him with prayer. Not the way I have though about how to communicate with one's eternal source. It seems like it's almost as if they "hammer" Him with prayers, he might change his mind or something and support their  way of thinking.

Why not just allow his will?

I don't understand people who seek to influence God's will or actually think they understand Him so that they can speak for him with certainty.

We know about as much about God's will as we know about all the grains of sand on a beach. Take all our knowing and we know only a tiny speck of what God is and what his will is.

Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:04:36 PM EST

Re: "hammer" God? (3.00 / 1)

That is very interesting. This implies that God will let her die if you pray just a little, but if you pray 24/7 he'll "Save" her..

This implies God is a (dare I say it) flip flopper.

Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "hammer" God? (none / 0)

I had never considered the possibility that God could be pressured into changing Her mind. Does that imply that God has some sort of ping detector and will change her mind if a particular person scores a sufficient number of pings?
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Story of Job? New Testament? (none / 0)

There are quite a few indications in the Bible that God changes His mind.

Come to think of it, in order to accept the New Testament, you have to accept this notion.

The Gospels seem to indicate that God will spin a few records for you if you're willing to phone in your request.

by jcjcjc on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Story of Job? New Testament? (none / 0)

I'm just a wayward Presbyterian with a passing familiarity with the Bible.

Even a wayward Presbyterians know She answers prayers, but what type of pressure is She subject to?

Will multiple prayers from many people change Her mind? Kind of like a spiritual democracy? I've never been impressed by the theory that televangelists can influence God's will by asking for prayers from their flock. Would She be influenced by a popularity contest?

There is a fundamental problem with even trying to guess the answers. If you know you must be God. If you are not God, you don't have a clue. Reading tea leaves is as helpful as reading the Bible for these kinds of answers.

That's why they call it faith.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:04:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"why they call it faith" (none / 0)

Ho-ho.  Here we've found one of the key difficulties of American Christianity.

Many Americans don't want faith.  They want results.  Why do you think so many quote the Old Testament?!  Because Yahweh got results, bub.  This new God, this Sensetive New Age God, he just ambles around smiting not a soul, and offering actual forgiveness.

Who the hell was the auther who said that the great American passtime was praying to go to heaven while praying your neighbors go to hell?

Plus, Old Testament was much bigger on placing requests, sacrifices, etc.

Americans, IMO, aren't fit for Christ's forgiveness, since they're not really sold on the virtues of forgiveness.

by jcjcjc on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:54:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "hammer" God? (none / 0)

I am mystified that a guy who made a movie obsessing about the crucifixion of Jesus is calling on people to "hammer" God.  maybe it's just habit for him now.
by benchcoat on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "hammer" God? (none / 0)

Makes perfect sense to me!

Mel loves the hammerings!

by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't have a clue (none / 0)

The way I figure the husband thinks the machine is akin to torture.  I agree.  It's even more obvious when people are dying of cancer, ms, etc. -- where the Oregon assisted suicide law applies.  

I might accept a million dollars to torture my mother-in-law but probably not my wife, mom, dad, brother, or sister.  

by Lystrosaurus on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:21:32 PM EST

Re: I don't have a clue (none / 0)

What machine?  Do you mean the feeding tube?  

After the initial implantation, feeding tubes are not painful.  They have to be continuously cleaned and monitored to prevent possible infections, but as long as they are cared for properly, they don't cause pain.

by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a clue (none / 0)

Keeping people alive in a permanent vegetative state is not that easy. Proper care is labor intensive and expensive.

There are tens of thousands of people in nursing homes who develop decubitus ulcers

The third of the decubitis ulcer stages involves a greater degree of tissue loss. Skin ulcers at this point become craters that invade the soft tissues below the skin's surface. The fourth of the decubitis ulcer stages is characterized by a crater which reaches the muscles, bones, tendons, or joints. At these decubitis ulcer stages extensive damage to deeper structures under the skin can lead to significant pain, tissue death, and serious infections.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There should be a consensus (3.00 / 1)

If Terry Schiavo's parents are not ready to let go,  Michael Schiavo should be more understanding.  I dont think Terry would like a rift within the family or have her parents go through this.  

I think custody should be awarded to Terry's parents since I understand Michael wants to move on.

by jasmine on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:50:54 PM EST

Re: There should be a consensus (none / 0)

As do I.
by bellarose on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There should be a consensus (none / 0)

If a consensus were possible there wouldn't be a lawsuit.
by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There should be a consensus (none / 0)

He strongly believes that she wanted to be allowed to die.  Would you stand aside while your husband's/wife's wishes not to be kept alive as a vegetable were ignored?  I doubt it.
by Terp on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There should be a consensus (none / 0)

I agree too. I believe in euthanasia when warranted and I do think in this case, removing life support won't even qualify as euthanasia.
However, having said that, I think the husband should just get on with his life and let her parents do what they want with Terry. It's not like she can feel pain anyway or feel miserable.

I do wonder how she is able to come up with those psuedo reactions, the smile, the gazing. Is she just a cipher who gives false hope to her parents? Why aren't the press reporting on how the body works to generate those facial expressions? Then again, can you blame the parents when they see those reactions? I blame Michael for this circus.

I am indifferent at this point whether she is off or on life support. The only people who have a right to worry is the insurance company or the state in case she is living off the state. At that point, I would say, let the parents support her care without using tax money and Michael should just move on with his life.

by Pravin on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I go with the callous pragmatic approach (none / 0)

I don't recall exactly, but I seem to recall that there are 50,000 people in the United States who are in a persistant vegetative state. There are another 10,000 in a coma.

As technology improves those numbers are going to increase. How many tens of thousands of people are we willing to keep alive indefinitely, decade after decade after decade?

I suspect that every insurance company in America has written exclusions into their policies to limit their financial obligation to a limited term of say five years for comas or vegetative states.

A related problem is that something like 80% of the cost of Medicare is spent keeping seniors alive in the last year of their life. This cost is also going to increase, and probably dramatically.

Is there some point when pre-natal care and infant mortality becomes as important or more important than people who are arguably already dead? Is there some point where health care for uninsured people become more important than people who are arguably dead? It seems almost gruesome to me to keep dead people on life support for as long as it is medically possible.

After somebody is brain-dead, how do you decide they are finally dead? How much money, for how many decades, do you spend keeping them semi-dead? We do not have unlimited resources for medical care. Is this where we want to focus limited resources for medical care?

At some point it is necessary to literally give up the ghost.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:45:06 PM EST

Right wing's favorite tactic (none / 0)

Take something murky and make a giant story out of it.

The sad part of this whole thing is that there is a very legitimate question of who has a right to sign off terminating a life.

Now, I'm a bitter-ender when it comes to life.  I definitely think a conscious person of any age of consent should be able to choose otherwise.

And, then you have this case, where to be blunt, no one really knows.

I personally side with the notion she should be kept alive.

I don't think its any different than the anti-death penalty argument that says that a slim chance of doing the wrong thing justifies not following through with it.

In this case, there is a chance that if you disconnect her, you're doing the wrong thing and going against her wishes.

What I object to most is the massive politicization of this case.  This case isn't about Terry Schiavo's choice or lack thereof (a rather libertarian argument).

This case is about a blanket effort to make the right-to-die movement look evil (a rather orthodox religious argument).  

The right-to-die movement needs to seize this as a clear chance to stake out opposition to this sort of thing.  They need to make a clear and specific point that this choice is a personal, conscious decision built on American notions of libertarianism.

Anything that doesn't meet that test has nothing to do with the right to die.

by jcjcjc on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:12:07 AM EST

She is NOT in a coma (none / 0)

She's in a vegetative state.  People in comas have a chance of being revived.  Her brain has liquefied.  She died a long, long time ago.  The body's reptilian brain stem is keeping its heart beating and lungs pumping, and occasionally sending random electrical signals to various muscles.

I can (somewhat) understand her parent's inability to let her go.  But there is ZERO chance of her coming back to life.  That body lying in that bed is just a shell where Terri used to live (and is being artificially kept "alive").  She's gone.  Her parents are causing themselves and everyone who loved Terri more grief than is necessary.  They need to move on for their own well-being as well as everyone else's.

by Biff on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:40:01 PM EST

I am very sorry (none / 0)

Yes,I think something has project that
...........................................................................
by markcqq on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 02:57:32 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.